TelecommunicationsReports News from the GAOhttp://www.gao.gov/
Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:12:07 -0500GAO/images/gao_logo_rss.gifGAO logohttp://www.gao.gov/
Feed provided by GAO. Click to visit.Telecommunications: Information on Low Power Television, FCC's Spectrum Incentive Auction, and Unlicensed Spectrum Use, December 05, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-17-135
What GAO Found
As of May 2016, there were 2,063 low power television (LPTV) stations and 3,660 translator stations in the United States and its territories, serving diverse communities. However, some LPTV and translator stations may be displaced and need to find a new channel or discontinue operation after the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ongoing incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum. By statute, these stations were not designated as eligible to participate in the auction; consequently, they cannot voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights in return for compensation. LPTV stations may serve rural communities with limited access to full-power stations and niche communities in urban areas, whereas translator stations retransmit the programming of other stations, mostly to viewers in rural areas who cannot otherwise receive television signals. After the auction, FCC intends to reorganize the television stations remaining on the air so that they will occupy a smaller range of channels, thus freeing up spectrum for other uses. LPTV and translator stations are not guaranteed a channel during the reorganization. FCC has acknowledged that the auction and channel reorganization may negatively affect an unknown number of LPTV and translator stations and that some viewers will lose service, and concluded the success of the auction outweighs these concerns. Broadcast industry associations and others have raised concerns about viewers' losing access to programming and emergency alert information these stations provide.
Selected stakeholders viewed FCC's actions to mitigate the effects of the incentive auction on LPTV and translator stations as helpful in some circumstances, but overall as insufficient. FCC's actions include using its software to identify channels that will be available for displaced stations following the auction and allowing channel sharing. While broadcast industry associations generally supported these measures in comments to FCC, some representatives told GAO that the actions will not do much to mitigate the effects of the incentive auction on LPTV and translator stations. Moreover, in response to GAO's non-generalizable survey, representatives of LPTV and translator stations generally indicated FCC's actions have limited usefulness.
According to selected stakeholders, FCC's proposal to preserve a vacant television channel in all areas throughout the country for unlicensed use, such as Wi-Fi Internet, could result in the loss of some existing broadcast service, but could have various benefits. Of the stakeholders GAO contacted, the broadcast industry associations generally opposed the proposal, while the technology companies supported it. According to a broadcast industry association, the proposal will force some LPTV and translator stations off the air because there will be one less channel where a displaced station can relocate, and many rural and underserved communities will likely lose access to the broadcast stations on which they rely. On the other hand, technology companies and other supporters of the vacant channel proposal maintain that preserving at least one vacant channel for unlicensed use will contribute to innovation and the development of new technologies. Proponents also said that preserving a vacant channel could help expand Wi-Fi more thoroughly giving people and businesses greater connectivity and could help extend coverage to people who might not have affordable access to the Internet.
Why GAO Did This Study
In 2012, Congress authorized FCC to conduct an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum whereby eligible broadcasters can voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights in return for compensation. This auction will make spectrum available for new uses such as mobile broadband and will also potentially affect LPTV and translator stations. In addition to conducting the auction, FCC proposed preserving at least one vacant television channel in all areas that could be used by unlicensed devices to ensure the public continues to have access to the benefits associated with these devices.
GAO was asked to review the possible effects of the auction on LPTV and translator stations and their viewers. This report examines: (1) LPTV and translator stations and how FCC's incentive auction might affect their viewers, (2) selected stakeholders' views on actions FCC has proposed to mitigate the possible effects of the auction on such stations, and (3) selected stakeholders' views on the expected outcomes of preserving a vacant television channel for unlicensed use. GAO reviewed relevant FCC proceedings and comments associated with those proceedings; surveyed a non-generalizable sample of 330 LPTV and translator station representatives with available e-mail addresses; and interviewed officials from FCC and industry stakeholders selected to represent various types of organizations, such as broadcast industry associations and technology companies. GAO provided FCC with a draft of this report. FCC's technical comments have been incorporated.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:00:00 -0500Letter ReportU.S. Postal Service: Information on How Broadband Affects Postal Use and the Communications Options for Rural Residents, September 12, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-811
What GAO Found
Broadband use has in recent years been associated with reduced use of First-Class Mail. Continued declines as a result of broadband, however, are uncertain. Broadband access to various Internet services, especially online bill paying, is associated with reduced use of transaction mail, a subset of First-Class Mail. GAO analysis of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) Household Diary Survey (HDS) data from 2007-2014 found that households using broadband to access Internet services tended to send less transaction mail than other households, controlling for age, income, and education. However, GAO found that in recent years broadband use may not have had a statistically significant effect on correspondence mail, a subset of First-Class Mail that includes letters and greeting cards. Experts GAO spoke with had mixed views on the future of First-Class Mail as a result of broadband use, with only 4 of the 11 experts expecting decreases in First-Class Mail in the short term. Several experts and officials suggested that Internet privacy and security concerns, as well as many individuals having already changed postal habits in response to the Internet, are among the factors that could be contributing to a slowed rate of “electronic diversion” from mail. With regard to rural areas, GAO analysis of HDS data suggests that rural households without broadband tended to send more transaction and correspondence mail than non-rural households without broadband in recent years. The officials in rural areas GAO interviewed generally agreed that residents of rural areas value mail and postal services for a variety of reasons, including that they have fewer retail alternatives and trust USPS services. Despite this relationship, GAO found that the subset of rural households with broadband were not statistically different in the volume of correspondence mail sent compared to non-rural households. In rural areas, two groups of businesses that GAO spoke with also noted that improved Internet access could result in mail volume declines.
E-commerce continues to have a strong effect on USPS package and shipping volumes. GAO analysis of HDS data found that broadband use in the home was associated with sending and receiving more packages with USPS in recent years. This analysis also found that households in rural areas made greater use of package and shipping services, a view echoed in interviews with officials in rural areas. While research and experts interviewed by GAO generally agreed that USPS's package business will grow in the short term, USPS is likely to face longer-term challenges, such as increased competition in the delivery market.
It is unclear what role broadband use has played in the reduction in post office visits in recent years. GAO analysis of HDS data found no statistically significant relationship between broadband use and post office visits. However, GAO found that rural households tend to visit post offices more regardless of broadband use. Local stakeholders GAO interviewed said that rural residents may use post offices at higher rates because post offices play a valuable social role in small communities and that alternatives for certain services, such as money orders, are lacking. To balance the benefits of its postal retail network with the high costs of some facilities, USPS is undertaking various initiatives. Despite these efforts, balancing the benefits of a robust network with the costs of maintaining that network, especially in rural areas, will remain a challenge for USPS.
Why GAO Did This Study
As broadband availability grows, Americans—including those in rural areas—increasingly partake in communications and services offered via the Internet. Some of these Internet services have changed how individuals use USPS. Though many factors influence use of postal services, understanding the relationship between broadband use and the use of postal services is critical to both the future of postal services overall and the communication options available to rural residents. GAO was asked to examine the relationship between broadband and postal use, particularly in rural areas.
This report addresses the relationship between broadband use and the use of USPS's (1) mail services, (2) package and shipping services, and (3) post offices, particularly in rural areas. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed literature on broadband and mail trends, factors associated with postal and broadband use, and the role of post offices in rural America. GAO conducted regression analyses using 2007-2014 data, the most recent available, from the USPS HDS, which collects information from a nationally representative sample of households. GAO interviewed local stakeholders, such as officials from post offices and Internet service providers, in five rural areas, chosen based on recent deployment of broadband and other factors. GAO also interviewed 11 postal experts, chosen based on participation in previous GAO work and postal conferences.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. USPS did not have any comments on the draft report.
For more information, contact Lori Rectanus at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportEmergency Communications: Survey of Selected Federal Agencies' Use and Procurement of Land Mobile Radio Equipment (GAO-17-13SP, October 5, 2016), an E-supplement to GAO-17-12, October 05, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-17-13SP
This e-supplement is a companion to GAO’s report entitled, Emergency Communications: Improved Procurement of Land Mobile Radios Could Enhance Interoperability and Cut Costs, GAO-17-12. The purpose of this e-supplement is to provide a summary of the results of GAO's survey of select civilian federal agencies on their use of land mobile radio (LMR) systems to communicate with other federal agencies. To identify relevant agencies for this survey, GAO first asked non-military participating members of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) to identify which, if any, of their component agencies use LMR to communicate with at least one other federal agency. The ECPC is comprised of 14 federal departments and agencies which serve as a federal interagency focal point for interoperable and operable communications coordination. Its members represent the federal government's broad role in emergency communications, including regulation, policy, operations, grants, and technical assistance. Members of the ECPC are: the Federal Communications Commission, the General Services Administration, and U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, and the Treasury.&nbsp;
Seventy-four federal agencies were identified. GAO screened this initial set of agencies to determine which of them use LMR systems to communicate with at least one other federal agency for daily operations; planned events, like presidential inaugurations; or unplanned incidents. All 74 agencies responded to the screening question. Agencies that met the criterion—58 federal LMR users in all—were further surveyed about the types of equipment they use, interoperability needs, and procurement practices, among other topics. All but one of the 58 agencies that GAO identified as federal LMR users responded to the full survey. The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not respond to the full survey but provided responses to a limited set of survey questions related to identifying agencies with which they&nbsp;require LMR interoperability. The results of the survey cannot be generalized to the experience and perspectives of federal agencies that did not participate in the survey.
For more information, contact Rebecca Shea at (202) 512-2834 or SheaR@gao.gov.Wed, 05 Oct 2016 13:00:00 -0400Other Written ProductEmergency Communications: Improved Procurement of Land Mobile Radios Could Enhance Interoperability and Cut Costs, October 05, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-17-12
What GAO Found
Federal agencies GAO surveyed generally use land mobile radio (LMR) equipment to meet their core missions, such as public safety, emergency management, or firefighting. More than two-thirds of the 57 agencies GAO surveyed reported using equipment from the same manufacturer because, for example, they believe doing so will help ensure compatibility of new LMR equipment with existing system requirements. Most agencies GAO surveyed were consistent in identifying each other as agencies with which they have or have not needed LMR interoperability over the past 5 years. Of the agencies that identified the need to communicate with each other, about two-thirds reported generally having a good or excellent level of LMR interoperability.
The use of standards-based and multi-band LMR equipment has helped to enhance interoperability among agencies, but the use of proprietary features and other factors continue to hinder interoperability. Almost all of the agencies that GAO surveyed reported using LMR equipment that meets voluntary technical standards, which have improved interoperability. Further, almost half of these agencies reported using multiband radios, which operate on multiple public-safety radio bands, to enhance interoperability. However, agencies reported several factors continue to limit their progress in achieving interoperability with other federal agencies. These factors include the use of proprietary features and encryption in devices and limited investments in LMR systems and devices. For example, about half of the agencies surveyed reported that the use of proprietary features within LMR devices has hindered interoperability.
Nearly half of the agencies GAO surveyed reported using pre-approved vendors with established prices to acquire LMR equipment, mainly through contracts sponsored by the Departments of Homeland Security and the Interior. While this approach can facilitate cost savings and interoperability, many of these agencies reported purchasing equipment through multiple agreements, a practice that can reduce these benefits. About 40 percent of agencies GAO surveyed reported using sole-source procurement or independent approaches. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in general, agencies often purchase and manage items in a fragmented and inefficient manner. This approach can result in duplication of effort, which imposes significant costs on federal agencies. OMB has directed agencies to implement “category management” as an improved way to manage spending across government for commonly purchased goods and services. This approach enables the government to leverage its purchasing power and realize cost savings. However, OMB’s category management initiative does not include LMR equipment even though federal agencies spend millions of dollars annually purchasing such equipment. By including LMR equipment in OMB’s category management initiative, the government could more fully leverage its aggregate buying power to obtain the most advantageous terms and conditions for LMR procurements. OMB officials agreed that a category management approach to LMR procurement might save the government money while supporting the goal of enhanced interoperability among agencies that require it, but OMB has not examined the feasibility of applying this approach to the procurement of LMR equipment.
Why GAO Did This Study
Public safety personnel across the nation rely on LMR to share information and coordinate their emergency response efforts. LMR systems are intended to provide secure, reliable, mission-critical voice communications in a variety of environments, scenarios, and emergencies; however, LMR interoperability—the ability to communicate across agencies—has been a long-standing challenge at all levels of government.
GAO was asked to examine federal agencies’ LMR interoperability and procurement practices. GAO examined (1) LMR equipment used by federal agencies and the state of LMR interoperability among these agencies; (2) factors that help and hinder LMR interoperability among agencies; and (3) agencies’ LMR procurement practices. GAO surveyed civilian federal agencies, identified through their membership in the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (57 agencies fully responded to the survey and one agency provided a partial response); reviewed Department of Homeland Security planning documents related to interoperability; and interviewed federal agency officials with responsibilities related to emergency communications and procurement of LMR equipment. GAO also reviewed OMB initiatives to improve federal procurement.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that OMB examine the feasibility of including LMR in its category management initiative. OMB generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations.
For more information, contact Rebecca Shea at (202) 512-2834 or shear@gao.gov.Wed, 05 Oct 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportChina: U.S. Universities in China Emphasize Academic Freedom but Face Internet Censorship and Other Challenges, August 29, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-757
What GAO Found
The 12 U.S. universities GAO reviewed generally reported receiving support for their institutions in China from Chinese government entities and universities, with limited funding from U.S. government agencies and other donors. Universities reported contributions from Chinese provincial and local governments and from partner universities for land, building construction, and use of campus facilities. Fewer than half of the universities reported receiving federal funding. Almost all of the U.S. universities said their programs in China generated net revenue for the university or had a neutral impact on its budget.
Universities' agreements with their Chinese partners or other policies that GAO reviewed generally include language protecting academic freedom or indicating their institution in China would adhere to U.S. standards. About half of universities GAO reviewed address access to information, such as providing faculty and students with access to physical or online libraries, though few universities' agreements and policies include language protecting Internet access. About half of the universities' policies include language indicating protection of at least one other key freedom—speech, assembly, or religion.
University members generally indicated that they experienced academic freedom, but they also indicated that Internet censorship and other factors presented constraints. Administrators said they generally controlled curriculum content, and faculty and students said they could teach or study what they chose. However, fewer than half of the universities GAO reviewed have uncensored Internet access. At several universities that lacked uncensored Internet access, students and faculty told us that, as a result, they sometimes faced challenges teaching, conducting research, and completing coursework. Administrators, faculty, and students also cited examples of self-censorship, where certain sensitive political topics—such as Tiananmen Square or China's relationship with Taiwan—were avoided in class, and of constraints faced by Chinese students in particular. Universities approved by the Chinese Ministry of Education as having independent legal status share characteristics—such as campuses located away from their Chinese university partner's campus and extensive student life programs—that may be correlated with greater academic freedom and other key freedoms.
Internet Access Varies at Different U.S. Universities in China
Why GAO Did This Study
In its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, the Department of State (State) concluded that academic freedom, a longstanding concern in China, had recently worsened. At the same time, the number of U.S. universities establishing degree-granting institutions in partnership with Chinese universities—teaching predominantly Chinese students—has increased. While universities have noted that these institutions offer benefits, some academics and others have raised questions as to whether faculty, students, and staff may face restricted academic freedom and other constraints.
This report reviews (1) funding and other support provided to U.S. universities to operate in China; (2) the treatment of academic and other key freedoms in arrangements between U.S. universities and their Chinese partners; and (3) the experience of academic and other key freedoms by faculty, students, and staff at selected U.S. universities in China. GAO reviewed 12 U.S. universities that have established degree-granting institutions in partnership with Chinese universities; interviewed and obtained university documents and questionnaire responses; interviewed faculty and students; and visited the campuses of 5 institutions selected on the basis of their location, student demographics, date of establishment, and other factors. GAO also interviewed officials and obtained information from the Departments of Education (Education) and State. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. Education and State had no comments on a draft of this report.
For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov.Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportHighlights of a Forum: Data and Analytics Innovation: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges, September 20, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-659SP
What the Participants Said
Forum discussions considered the implications of new data-related technologies and developments that are revolutionizing the basic three-step innovation process in the figure below. As massive amounts of varied data become available in many fields, data generation (step 1 in the process) is transformed. Continuing technological advances are bringing more powerful analytics and changing analysis possibilities (step 2 in the process). And approaches to new decision making include intelligent machines that may, for example, guide human decision makers. Additionally, data may be automatically generated on actions taken in response to data analytic results, creating an evaluative feedback loop.
A Twenty-first Century Cycle: Data and Analytics Innovation
Forum participants
saw the newly revolutionized and still-evolving process of data and analytics innovation (DAI) as generating far-reaching new economic opportunities, including a new Industrial Revolution based on combining data-transmitting cyber systems and physical systems, resulting in cyber-physical systems—which have alternatively been termed the Industrial Internet, also the Internet of Things;
warned of an ongoing and potentially widening mismatch between the kinds of jobs that are or will be available and the skill levels of the U.S. labor force;
identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as health care, transportation, financial markets, and “smart cities,” among others; and
outlined areas of data-privacy concern, including for example, possible threats to personal autonomy, which could occur as data on individual persons are collected and used without their knowledge or against their will.
The overall goal of the forum's discussions and of this report is to help lay the groundwork for future efforts to maximize DAI benefits and minimize potential drawbacks. As such, the forum was not directed toward identifying a specific set of policies relevant to DAI. However, participants suggested that efforts to help realize the promise of DAI opportunities would be directed toward improving data access, assessing the validity of new data and models, creating a welcoming DAI ecosystem, and more generally, raising awareness of DAI’s potential among both policymakers and the general public. Participants also noted a likely need for higher U.S. educational achievement and a measured approach to privacy issues that recognizes both their import and their complexity.
Why GAO Convened This Forum
Massive volumes of data are increasingly being generated at unprecedented rates as a result of advances in information technology and developments such as use of expanded mobile capabilities (supported by more powerful and increasingly widespread bandwidth). New&nbsp;approaches to combining and “making sense of” large amounts of varied data—methods referred to as advanced analytics—are helping to uncover patterns, identify anomalies, and provide insights not suggested by a priori hypotheses. In fact, advanced algorithms are enabling the automation of functions that require the ability to reason; for example, an algorithm may use data on weather, traffic, and roadways to estimate and provide real-time information to drivers on traffic delays and congestion.
At the January 2016 forum, participants from industry, government, academia and nonprofit organizations considered potential implications of these developments. Their discussion of emerging forms of data, analytics, and innovation pointed to a combined process or cycle in which relevant data are generated and subjected to analysis, so that results can be applied to innovative\ decision making or uses. We term this process “data and analytics innovation.” Consideration of related impacts spanned the economy and society, and included new opportunities with accompanying challenges, as well as potentially negative impacts. Following the forum, participants reviewed a summary of forum discussions, and two experts (who did not attend the forum) independently reviewed a draft of this report. The report does not necessarily represent the views of any individual participant or organization.
For more information, contact Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist, at (202) 512-6412 or personst@gao.gov.Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:00:00 -0400Other Written ProductSmartphone Data: Information and Issues Regarding Surreptitious Tracking Apps That Can Facilitate Stalking, April 21, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-317
What GAO Found
GAO found that the majority of the reviewed websites for smartphone tracking applications (apps) marketed their products to parents or employers to track the location of their children or employees, respectively, or to monitor them in other ways, such as intercepting their smartphone communications. Several tracking apps were marketed to individuals for the purpose of tracking or intercepting the communications of an intimate partner to determine if that partner was cheating. About one-third of the websites marketed their tracking apps as surreptitious, specifically to track the location and intercept the smartphone communications of children, employees, or intimate partners without their knowledge or consent.
The key concerns of the stakeholders with whom GAO spoke—including domestic violence groups, privacy groups, and academics—were questions about: (1) the applicability of current federal laws to the manufacture, sale, and use of surreptitious tracking apps; (2) the limited enforcement of current laws; and (3) the need for additional education about tracking apps. GAO found that some federal laws apply or potentially apply to smartphone tracking apps, particularly those that surreptitiously intercept communications such as e-mails or texts, but may not apply to some instances involving surreptitiously tracking location. Statutes that may be applicable to surreptitious tracking apps, depending on the circumstances of their sale or use, are statutes related to wiretapping, unfair or deceptive trade practices, computer fraud, and stalking. Stakeholders also expressed concerns over what they perceived to be limited enforcement of laws related to tracking apps and stalking. Some of these stakeholders believed it was important to prosecute companies that manufacture surreptitious tracking apps and market them for the purpose of spying. Domestic violence groups stated that additional education of law enforcement officials and consumers about how to protect against, detect, and remove tracking apps is needed.
The federal government has undertaken educational, enforcement, and legislative efforts to protect individuals from the use of surreptitious tracking apps, but stakeholders differed over whether current federal laws need to be strengthened to combat stalking. Educational efforts by the Department of Justice (DOJ) have included funding for the Stalking Resource Center, which trains law enforcement officers, victim service professionals, policymakers, and researchers on the use of technology in stalking. With regard to enforcement, DOJ has prosecuted a manufacturer and an individual under the federal wiretap statute for the manufacture or use of a surreptitious tracking app. Some stakeholders believed the federal wiretap statute should be amended to explicitly include the interception of location data and DOJ has proposed amending the statute to allow for the forfeiture of proceeds from the sale of smartphone tracking apps and to make the sale of such apps a predicate offense for money laundering. Stakeholders differed in their opinions on the applicability and strengths of the relevant federal laws and the need for legislative action. Some industry stakeholders were concerned that legislative actions could be overly broad and harm legitimate uses of tracking apps. However, stakeholders generally agreed that location data can be highly personal information and are deserving of privacy protections.
Why GAO Did This Study
Smartphone tracking apps exist that allow a person to not only surreptitiously track another person's smartphone location information, but also surreptitiously intercept the smartphone's communications—such as texts, e-mails, and phone calls. This type of monitoring—without a person's knowledge or consent—can present serious safety and privacy risks.
GAO was asked to review issues around the use of surreptitious smartphone tracking apps. This report examines (1) how companies are marketing smartphone tracking apps on their websites, (2) concerns selected stakeholders have about the use of tracking apps to facilitate stalking, and (3) actions the federal government has taken or could take to protect individuals from the use of surreptitious tracking apps. GAO identified 40 smartphone tracking apps and analyzed their websites' marketing language. GAO interviewed stakeholders selected for their knowledge in this area, including academics; privacy, industry, and domestic violence associations; and tracking app and other companies. GAO also interviewed representatives of five federal agencies.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Health &amp; Human Services, and DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments and clarifications that GAO incorporated as appropriate. The Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce did not have any comments on the report.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Mon, 09 May 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportStatutory Copyright Licenses: Stakeholders' Views on a Phaseout of Licenses for Broadcast Programming, May 04, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-496
What GAO Found
A phaseout of the statutory licenses for broadcast programming may be feasible for most participants in the video marketplace, although there may be statutory implications for the “carriage requirements” governing which local broadcast television stations are carried by cable and satellite operators. These licenses allow cable and satellite operators to carry copyrighted content, such as television shows and movies, embedded in local broadcast stations' signals to their subscribers' television sets without negotiating with individual copyright owners. At the same time, these cable and satellite operators also engage in market-based negotiations to make some or all of this content available in other contexts, such as online. Of the 42 selected stakeholders GAO interviewed, 21 either use the statutory licenses or have their content provided through the statutory licenses. 20 of these 21 stakeholders—including content producers, broadcast networks, and cable and satellite operators—also engage in market-based negotiations to license broadcast content for video-on-demand or online viewing. Therefore, for stakeholders representing these business interests, a market-based approach to licensing secondary transmission rights may be feasible. However, some participants in the video marketplace—most notably, public television and small cable operators—may face logistical challenges and financial constraints in the event of a phaseout of the statutory licenses.
Phasing out the statutory licenses could have implications for the “must-carry” and “carry-one, carry-all requirements,” which require cable and satellite operators, respectively, to carry the signals of local broadcast television stations upon request. As GAO has previously reported, the must-carry requirement could become impractical if Congress phased out the statutory license that applies to cable operators, as these operators could find themselves in the paradoxical position of being required to transmit the copyrighted content on a local broadcast television station's signal for which they may not have the legal right to air. In addition, according to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Copyright Office, the carry-one, carry-all requirement would no longer apply to satellite operators if the applicable statutory license were phased out because the requirement is premised on the use of the license.
The 42 selected stakeholders GAO interviewed varied in their support for a phaseout of the statutory licenses and many stakeholders were uncertain about the potential effects on the marketplace and consumers. For example:
15 supported a full or partial phaseout; 13 did not have a position; and 14 did not support a phaseout, because most believe the current system works,
About half were uncertain how a phaseout would affect the video marketplace. This uncertainty stems from uncertainty over how the carriage requirements may change and the video marketplace would respond; 10 thought a phaseout would affect competition in the market, but differed on whether this would increase or decrease programming costs.
6 thought consumers' access to programming would be negatively affected, 7 thought diversity of programs offered would decrease, and 13 thought consumer prices would rise.
Why GAO Did This Study
Most U.S. households rely on cable or satellite operators to watch television broadcast programming. These operators are able to provide their subscribers with broadcast programming—including local news—by retransmitting local broadcast television stations' over-the-air signals. Three statutory licenses permit operators to offer copyrighted broadcast programming in return for paying a government-set royalty fee. For 2014, these fees totaled about $320 million. Congress created statutory licenses as a cost-effective way for operators to air broadcast programming without obtaining permission to do so from those that own the copyrights for this programming. However, changes in the video marketplace have led some industry stakeholders to question the need for the licenses.
The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Reauthorization Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to review possible effects of phasing out the statutory licenses. This report addresses (1) what is known about the feasibility of phasing out the statutory licenses and (2) views of selected stakeholders on the implications of such a phaseout. GAO analyzed FCC's cable price data from 2010 to 2014 and the U.S. Copyright Office's royalty data from 2014, the most recently available; reviewed relevant laws and reports; and interviewed 42 industry stakeholders, selected for their role in the video marketplace and expertise on the issue.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Wed, 04 May 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTribal Internet Access: Increased Federal Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed, April 27, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-504T
What GAO Found
In January 2016, GAO found that, although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed Internet, barriers to increasing access remain. Tribal officials and Internet providers said that high poverty rates among tribes and the high costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks limit high-speed Internet availability and access. About half of the tribes GAO interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed Internet access.
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service grant programs are interrelated. The programs seek to increase high-speed Internet access in underserved areas, including tribal lands. GAO's previous work on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination on interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint outreach and training, which could result in inefficient use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint event could have saved limited training funds and reduced costs.
FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called for greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and measures for improving high-speed Internet availability to households on tribal lands. FCC could establish baseline measures to track its progress by using, for example, the National Broadband Map which includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks both reliable data on high-speed Internet access and performance goals and measures for high-speed Internet access by tribal institutions—such as schools and libraries. Specifically, FCC's E-rate program provides funds to ensure that schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies, but FCC has neither defined “tribal” on its E-rate application nor set any performance goals for the program's impact on tribal institutions. Without these goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study
High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation's infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to remote tribal communities. This testimony examines: (1) perspectives of tribes and providers on high-speed Internet access and barriers to increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to high-speed Internet on tribal lands. This statement is based on GAO's January 2016 report (GAO-16-222). For this report, GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers. GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and interviewed federal officials.
What GAO Recommended
In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the following actions in tribal areas: (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to schools and libraries; and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed with the recommendations.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-6670 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:00:00 -0400TestimonyLocal Media Advertising: FCC Should Take Action to Ensure Television Stations Publicly File Advertising Agreements, March 10, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-349
What GAO Found
Agreements among station owners allowing stations to jointly sell advertising—known as “joint sales agreements”—are mostly in smaller markets and include provisions such as the amount of advertising time sold and how stations share revenue. Some of these agreements also included provisions typical of other types of sharing agreements. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires each station involved in a joint sales agreement to file the agreement in the station's public inspection file. According to FCC, these files are meant to provide the public increased transparency about the operation of local stations and encourage public participation in ensuring that stations serve the public interest. GAO reviewed all joint sales agreements found in stations' public files and identified 86 such agreements among stations. GAO also found inconsistencies in the filing of these agreements. Specifically, 25 of these agreements were filed by one station but not by others involved in the agreements. FCC addresses compliance with this filing requirement through its periodic reviews of station licensing and in response to complaints. However, FCC officials said neither of these approaches has identified agreements that should be filed but have not been, and FCC has not reviewed the completeness of stations' joint sales agreement filings. If stations with joint sales agreements are not filing these agreements as required, a member of the public reviewing such a station's public file would not see in the file that the station's advertising sales involve joint sales with another station. Most multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) stakeholders GAO interviewed said that interconnects exist in most markets. These arrangements allow an advertiser to purchase advertising from a single point to be simultaneously distributed to all MVPDs in a local market participating in the interconnect.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed—including station owners, MVPDs, media industry associations, and financial analysts—said that joint sales agreements and interconnects can provide economic benefits for television stations and MVPDs, respectively. Joint sales agreements allow stations to cut advertising costs, since one station generally performs this role for both stations. For example, some station owners said they used the savings from joint sales agreements and other service-sharing agreements to invest in and improve local programming. Some selected station owners and financial analysts said that stations in smaller markets are more likely to use joint sales agreements because stations in smaller markets receive less advertising revenue while having similar costs as stations in larger markets. Other stakeholders, including public-interest groups and academics, raised concerns about how these agreements may negatively affect local markets. For example, some public-interest groups said that using these agreements reduces competition in the local market and allows broadcasters to circumvent FCC's ownership rules. MVPDs stated that interconnects allow MVPDs to better compete with broadcasters for local advertising revenue by increasing the potential reach of an advertisement to subscribers of MVPDs participating in the interconnect. Some small MVPDs raised concerns that large MVPDs that manage interconnects may impose unfair terms as a condition of their participation in the interconnect. However, large MVPDs said they do not engage in such practices.
Why GAO Did This Study
Television stations, which provide free, over-the-air programming, and MVPDs, which provide subscription television services, compete with other local media for advertising revenue. FCC rules limit the number of local stations an entity can own in one market to promote competition and other public interests. Some station owners created joint sales agreements to potentially cut costs. In 2014, finding that such agreements confer influence akin to ownership, FCC adopted rules that require that where such agreements encompass more than 15 percent of the weekly advertising time of another station, they will count toward FCC's ownership limits. MVPDs also have arrangements (“interconnects”) for jointly selling advertising in a local market.
GAO was asked to examine the role of advertising agreements in local media markets. This report examines (1) the prevalence and characteristics of such agreements, and (2) stakeholders' perspectives on these agreements. GAO examined publicly available joint sales agreements and interviewed FCC officials and media, public interest, academic, and financial stakeholders about their views. Stakeholders were selected to represent a range of companies and from those who submitted comments on FCC's rules, among other reasons.
What GAO Recommends
FCC should review joint sales agreements filed in stations' public files to identify missing agreements and take action to ensure the files are complete. FCC said it would take action to ensure compliance with its public file requirement.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTelecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, January 29, 2016http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-222
What GAO Found
Although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed Internet, tribes and providers GAO interviewed cited barriers to increasing access. For example, high poverty rates and the high costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks—called middle-mile infrastructure—limit high-speed Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands (see fig.). About half of the tribes GAO interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed Internet access.
Types of Middle-Mile Internet Service Delivery Infrastructure
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service grant programs are interrelated in that they seek to increase high-speed Internet access in underserved areas, including tribal lands. GAO's previous work on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination on interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint outreach and training. This could result in an inefficient use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging between FCC and USDA.
FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan, which called for greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and measures for improving high-speed Internet availability to households on tribal lands. Without these goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts. The National Broadband Map includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands that could allow FCC to establish baseline measures for Internet availability on tribal lands. Further, FCC also lacks performance goals and measures for tribal institutions—such as schools and libraries. Specifically, FCC's E-rate program provides funds to ensure that schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies, but FCC has not set any performance goals for the program's impact on tribal institutions. Nor has FCC defined “tribal” on the E-rate application. Without such information, it will be difficult to accurately track progress in making broadband available in tribal institutions.
Why GAO Did This Study
High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation's infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to remote tribal communities. However, in 2015, FCC reported that the lack of service in tribal areas presents impediments. GAO was asked to review the status of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. The report examines (1) perspectives of tribes and providers on high-speed Internet access and barriers to increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to high-speed Internet on tribal lands. GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers selected to provide diversity in size, location, and poverty levels. GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and interviewed federal officials.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that FCC (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for tribal areas for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to tribal schools and libraries; and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed with the recommendations.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-6670 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:00:00 -0500Letter ReportInternet Protocol Transition: FCC Should Strengthen Its Data Collection Efforts to Assess the Transition's Effects, December 16, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-16-167
What GAO Found
As the nation's telecommunications systems transition from legacy telephone networks to Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks, telecommunications carriers can face challenges during times of crisis that affect end users' ability to call 911 and receive emergency communications. These challenges include (1) preserving consumer service and (2) supporting existing emergency communications services and equipment. For example, during power outages, consumers with service provided over IP networks and without backup power can lose service. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is working to address this issue by adopting rules that will require carriers to provide information to consumers on backup power sources, among other things. Another challenge is that IP networks may not support existing telecommunications “priority” services, which allow key government and public-safety officials to communicate during times of crisis.
FCC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and telecommunications carriers have taken various steps to ensure the reliability of IP communications, for example:
FCC proposed criteria—such as support for 911 services, network security, and access for people with disabilities—to evaluate carriers' replacement of legacy services when carriers seek to discontinue existing service.
DHS coordinated the development of the Communications Sector Specific Plan to help protect the nation's communications infrastructure.
Carriers told GAO they build resiliency and reliability into their IP networks as part of business operations and emergency planning.
FCC is also collecting data on the IP transition, but FCC could do more to ensure it has the information it needs to make data-driven decisions about the transition. FCC has emphasized that one of its statutory responsibilities is to ensure that its core values, including public safety capabilities and consumer protection, endure as the nation transitions to modernized networks. FCC stated that fulfilling this responsibility requires learning more about how the transition affects consumers. FCC plans on collecting data on the IP transition primarily through voluntary experiments proposed and run by telecommunications carriers. However, it is unclear if FCC will be able to make data-driven decisions about the IP transition because of the limited number and scale of the proposed experiments. In particular, there are only three proposed experiments that cover a very limited number of consumers; none of the experiments covers consumer services in high-density urban areas or includes critical national-security or public-safety locations. FCC also sought comment on how to supplement its data-gathering process; however, soliciting comments may not necessarily result in a change in FCC's existing policies. GAO found FCC lacks a detailed strategy that outlines how it will address its remaining information needs. Developing a strategy for collecting information about how the IP transition affects public safety and consumers would help FCC make data-driven decisions and address areas of uncertainty as it oversees the IP transition.
Why GAO Did This Study
The communications sector is essential to the nation's economy and government operations and for the delivery of public safety services, especially during emergencies. As the sector transitions from legacy networks to IP-based networks, consumer and public safety groups and others have raised concerns about how the communications networks will function during times of crisis.
GAO was asked to examine the reliability of the nation's communications network in an IP environment during times of crisis. GAO examined (1) the potential challenges affecting IP networks in times of crisis and how the challenges may affect end users, and (2) the actions FCC, DHS, and other stakeholders have taken to ensure the reliability of IP communications. GAO reviewed FCC and DHS documents as well as FCC proceedings and comments filed with FCC on the IP transition and emergency communications. GAO assessed FCC's efforts to collect data on the effect of the IP transition. GAO interviewed officials from FCC and DHS, and representatives from the three largest telecommunications carriers, industry associations, and public interest and consumer advocacy groups.
What GAO Recommends
FCC should strengthen its data collection efforts to assess the IP transition's effects. FCC did not agree or disagree with the recommendation and stated it has a strategy in place to oversee the IP transition. However, GAO continues to believe FCC should strengthen its data collection efforts.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:00:00 -0500Letter ReportInternet Management: Structured Evaluation Could Help Assess Proposed Transition of Key Domain Name and Other Technical Functions, August 19, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642
What GAO Found
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced that it would transition its oversight of the coordination of certain key Internet technical functions (such as the domain name system) to the global multistakeholder community if a suitable transition proposal were developed. In response, several steps were taken to develop a proposal and address identified risks. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which operates these technical functions under contract with NTIA, convened stakeholders from technical, government, business, and public interest organizations, among others. These stakeholders formed working groups with the goal to develop a consensus-based proposal they plan to provide to the ICANN board by late fall 2015. The board will then provide the proposal to NTIA. In draft proposals, working groups have proposed new post-transition arrangements to manage identified risks and hold ICANN accountable to the multistakeholder community. For example, stakeholders identified a risk that ICANN could be captured by a particular interest. To address this risk, stakeholders proposed changes that would empower the multistakeholder community to veto board decisions related to ICANN's plans and budget and to remove board members, among other things.
NTIA plans to evaluate the proposal against core goals, such as maintaining the security and stability of the Internet domain name system and the openness of the Internet. However, NTIA has not yet determined how it will evaluate the proposal against the goals. The changes the working groups are considering could create a new organizational environment for the operation of the technical functions, such as new structures, contractual obligations, and governance models for ICANN. Given the extent of these potential changes, GAO identified frameworks for evaluation that could provide tools to guide NTIA's evaluation.
These frameworks incorporate leading practices to help organizations obtain reasonable assurance that their goals and objectives will be met or that they will meet certain requirements. For example, key components of one framework include the organizational environment, risk assessment, and monitoring.
In prior work, GAO has considered such frameworks in relationship to accountability challenges at a variety of organizations. These types of frameworks could help NTIA evaluate whether the transition proposal meets its core goals, and could also be helpful in considering accountability mechanisms that are included in the proposal. For example, one framework's risk assessment component could help NTIA consider the multistakeholder community's efforts to identify and manage risks.
These frameworks are intentionally flexible, so that NTIA could select elements that are applicable to the scope of the proposed transition.
Without a framework as a tool to systematically review the proposal and its various new structures and processes, NTIA may not be assured that its goals for the transition have been fully addressed and embedded over the long term.
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. government helped to fund the development of the Internet but since 1997 has envisioned that the coordination of certain Internet technical functions would be managed completely by the private sector. As the Internet has grown, the Department of Commerce's NTIA has contracted with a nonprofit corporation, ICANN, for the operation of these technical functions. In March 2014, NTIA established core goals for a transition proposal and announced that if a suitable proposal could be developed, NTIA would let the technical functions contract expire and transition its oversight role to a global multistakeholder community.
GAO was asked to review implications of NTIA's proposed transition. This report examines: (1) the process of developing a transition proposal and addressing identified transition risks, and (2) NTIA's plans to evaluate a proposal. GAO reviewed NTIA's evaluation plans and identified frameworks for NTIA to use in its evaluation; reviewed transition documents; and interviewed officials from NTIA, other federal agencies assisting NTIA with the proposed transition, and ICANN, as well as stakeholders selected based on their technical, commercial, and academic backgrounds.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that NTIA review relevant frameworks for evaluation and use applicable portions to help evaluate the transition proposal. The Department of Commerce concurred with the recommendation.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportDefense Satellite Communications: DOD Needs Additional Information to Improve Procurements, July 17, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-459
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense's (DOD) procurement of commercial satellite communications (SATCOM), or bandwidth, is fragmented and inefficient. Historically, commercial SATCOM was used to augment military capability, but DOD has become increasingly reliant on commercial SATCOM to support ongoing U.S. military operations. DOD policy requires all of its components to procure commercial SATCOM through the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), but GAO found that some components are independently procuring SATCOM to meet their individual needs. DOD's most recent SATCOM usage report estimates that over 30 percent of commercial SATCOM is bought independently by DOD components, even though DOD found the average cost of commercial SATCOM bought through DISA is about 16 percent lower than independently bought commercial SATCOM. Fragmentation limits opportunities for DOD to bundle purchases, share services, and streamline its procurement of commercial SATCOM.
DOD recently completed two studies aimed at identifying the appropriate future mix of military and commercial SATCOM and predicting future SATCOM needs, however, the reports are partially based on incomplete data. First, the 2014 Satellite Communications Strategy Report did not identify the appropriate future mix of military and commercial SATCOM; rather, it outlined a plan that, if successful, may allow DOD to do so at a later time. Second, the 2014 Mix of Media Report based its predictions of future SATCOM requirements and demand on DOD's SATCOM Database, which DOD officials acknowledge lacks comprehensive usage and demand data.
DOD is taking steps to improve its SATCOM procurement and address challenges through “pathfinder” efforts aimed at identifying short- and long-term options. For example, DOD intends to study the potential benefits of using innovative contracting approaches as it procures military and commercial SATCOM, and refine its understanding of DOD's global SATCOM requirements. However, it may be several years before DOD is able to evaluate the results of its pathfinder efforts. For example, all of the 10 pathfinders planned or already underway are expected to be completed in or beyond fiscal year 2017. DOD's efforts to improve its procurement of military and commercial SATCOM will also be hampered by two long-standing challenges—lack of knowledge of what DOD is spending on commercial SATCOM and resistance to centralized management of SATCOM procurement—both of which GAO reported on and made recommendations to improve in 2003—regarding commercial SATCOM. Specifically, GAO recommended that DOD strengthen its capacity to provide accurate and complete analyses of commercial bandwidth spending and implement a strategic management framework for improving the acquisition of commercial bandwidth. DOD generally concurred with GAO's 2003 recommendations and developed a plan to address them, but none of DOD's corrective actions was carried out as intended. These challenges are commonly faced by organizations seeking to strategically source procurements of services, but they can be overcome by employing best practices, which include conducting detailed spend analyses and centralized management of service procurements to identify procurement inefficiencies and opportunities.
Why GAO Did This Study
DOD depends on commercial SATCOM to support a variety of critical mission needs, from unmanned aerial vehicles and intelligence to voice and data for military personnel. In fiscal year 2011, the most recent information available, DOD spent over $1 billion leasing commercial SATCOM. In prior work, GAO found that some major DOD users of commercial satellite bandwidth were dissatisfied with DISA's acquisition process seeing it as too costly and lengthy. These users also indicated that the contracts used were too inflexible.
The Senate Armed Services Committee's report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 included a provision for DOD to report on the future mix of military and commercial SATCOM and for GAO to review DOD's report, issued in August 2014. This report (1) assesses the extent to which DOD efficiently procures bandwidth, (2) analyzes the extent to which DOD has identified its future SATCOM requirements using DOD and commercial satellite services, as well as how those requirements will be met, and (3) identifies the steps DOD is taking to improve its procurements of commercial SATCOM.
To conduct this work, GAO reviewed DOD's reports, DOD SATCOM procurement guidance, prior GAO reports, and interviewed DOD officials.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOD (1) enforce current policy requiring DISA to acquire all commercial SATCOM; (2) conduct a spend analysis identifying procurement inefficiencies and opportunities; and (3) assess whether further centralization of commercial SATCOM procurement could be beneficial. DOD concurred.
For more information, contact Cristina Chaplain, (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao.gov.Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportAccessible Communications: FCC Should Evaluate the Effectiveness of Its Public Outreach Efforts, June 25, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-574
What GAO Found
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established accessibility complaint and enforcement procedures within the time frames mandated by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) to ensure that people with disabilities would have access to advanced communications. FCC's complaint and enforcement procedures enable consumers to file (1) a pre-complaint Request for Dispute Assistance (RDA), (2) an informal complaint, or (3) a formal complaint if consumers believe a communications product or service is not accessible to people with disabilities. From October 8, 2013, to April 1, 2015, FCC received 48 RDAs and no informal or formal complaints. FCC has undertaken numerous efforts to inform the public about CVAA's protections and remedies by, for example, hosting seminars and webinars and publishing consumer guides on accessibility issues. However, GAO found FCC's efforts do not always align with key practices for conducting public outreach. In particular, FCC has not evaluated the effectiveness of its public outreach efforts. Without such an evaluation, FCC does not know the program's effectiveness in informing the public of the protections and remedies available under CVAA and thus cannot reasonably assure the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the outreach program. Evaluating the outreach efforts would also enable FCC to determine whether current resources allocated to the outreach program are appropriate or need adjustment.
FCC has taken limited actions to ensure industry compliance with CVAA's recordkeeping provisions and does not know the extent to which industry is fully complying with the requirements to make products and services accessible. FCC established the Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact Information Registry to help ensure industry compliance with recordkeeping requirements. Companies subject to any CVAA accessibility requirement must submit an annual certification to FCC that they are maintaining records of their efforts to make their products accessible through the Registry. FCC could not say whether industry is complying with CVAA accessibility requirements because FCC lacks an objective measure for making this determination. However, developing a measure might not be cost effective given that FCC has received no informal or formal complaints asserting non-compliance with these requirements. In FCC's 2014 biennial report to Congress, FCC based its determination of industry compliance on public comments and industry association reports.
Stakeholders GAO surveyed and interviewed generally reported that CVAA's recordkeeping obligations have not affected the development and deployment of new communications technologies. Specifically, GAO estimated that between 59 and 70 percent of companies view CVAA's recordkeeping requirements as having had no effect on their development and deployment of new communications technologies. Overall, industry associations and disability advocates GAO interviewed generally agreed that accessibility improved since the passage of CVAA. Industry associations highlighted a number of association-led efforts to bring industry and consumers together to ensure that the needs of disabled consumers are being addressed. Advocates for people with disabilities indicated that there were still many ways in which the accessibility of communications technology could be further improved, but some believed that CVAA resulted in more widely available accessible technology.
Why GAO Did This Study
CVAA was enacted to help ensure that people with disabilities have full access to the benefits of technological advances in communications. The act required FCC to establish regulations and conduct public outreach and included a provision that GAO review FCC's efforts. GAO examined (1) the extent to which FCC established complaint and enforcement procedures within CVAA-required time frames and conducted public outreach, (2) the actions FCC has taken to ensure industry compliance with CVAA's recordkeeping provisions and to determine the level of industry compliance with accessibility requirements, and (3) stakeholders' views on the effect of CVAA's recordkeeping obligations on the development and deployment of new communications technologies.
GAO reviewed FCC's regulations, orders, and biennial reports to Congress; surveyed a random sample of companies certifying compliance with CVAA requirements; assessed FCC's efforts to conduct public outreach against key practices GAO previously identified through an expert panel; and interviewed FCC officials and representatives from industry associations, consumer advocate groups, and disability research organizations selected based on CVAA-related comments they submitted to FCC.
What GAO Recommends
FCC should evaluate its public outreach efforts and ensure those efforts incorporate key practices. FCC concurred with the recommendation and intends to take action to address it.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTelecommunications: FCC Should Evaluate the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Lifeline Program, June 02, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-638T
What GAO Found
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made progress implementing reforms to the Lifeline Program (Lifeline), which reduces the cost of telephone service for eligible low-income households. In 2012, FCC adopted a Reform Order with 11 key reforms that aimed to increase accountability and strengthen internal controls, among other things. FCC has made progress implementing eight of the reforms, including the National Lifeline Accountability Database, which provides a mechanism to verify an applicant’s identify and whether the applicant already receives Lifeline service. FCC has partially implemented three of the reforms. For example, FCC established performance goals for the program, but it has not fully defined performance measures.
FCC has not evaluated the extent to which Lifeline is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals—to ensure the availability of voice service for low-income Americans and minimize the burden on consumers and businesses that fund the program. FCC attributes improvements in the level of low-income households' subscribing to telephone service over the past 30 years to Lifeline, but other factors, such as lower prices, may play a role. FCC officials stated that Lifeline's structure makes evaluation difficult, but referred GAO to two academic studies that have evaluated the program. These studies suggest that household demand for telephone service—even among low-income households—is relatively insensitive to changes in the price of service and household income; therefore, several households may receive the Lifeline subsidy for every additional household that subscribes to telephone service due to the subsidy. GAO has found that program evaluation can help agencies understand whether a program is addressing an intended problem. Without a program evaluation, FCC does not know whether Lifeline is effectively ensuring the availability of telephone service for low-income households while minimizing program costs.
The usefulness of the broadband pilot program may be limited by FCC’s lack of an evaluation plan and other challenges. The pilot program included 14 projects to test an array of options and provide data on how Lifeline could be structured to promote broadband. Although GAO recommended in 2010 that FCC develop a needs assessment and implementation and evaluation plans for the pilot, FCC did not do so. A needs assessment, for example, could provide information on the telecommunications needs of low-income households and the most cost-effective means to meet those needs. In addition, the 14 projects enrolled about 12 percent of the 74,000 customers anticipated. FCC officials said they do not view the pilot’s low enrollment as a problem, as the program sought variation. FCC officials noted that the pilot program is one of many factors it will consider when deciding whether and how to incorporate broadband into Lifeline, and to the extent the pilot program had flaws, those flaws will be taken into consideration. In May 2015, FCC released a report which discusses data collected from the pilots.
Why GAO Did This Study
Through FCC's Lifeline program, companies provide discounts to eligible low-income households for telephone service. Lifeline supports these companies through the Universal Service Fund (USF); in 2014, Lifeline’s disbursements totaled approximately $1.7 billion. Companies generally pass their USF contribution obligation on to their customers, typically in the form of a line item on their telephone bills. In 2012, FCC adopted reforms to improve the program’s internal controls and to explore adding broadband through a pilot program. &nbsp;This testimony summarizes the findings from GAO’s March 2015 report (GAO-15-335) and provides information on (1) the status of Lifeline reform efforts, (2) the extent to which FCC has evaluated the effectiveness of the program, and (3) how FCC plans to evaluate the broadband pilot program. GAO reviewed FCC orders and other relevant documentation; analyzed 2008-2012 Census Bureau data; and interviewed FCC officials, officials at four pilot projects selected based on features such as technology, and officials from 12 Lifeline providers and four states selected based on factors such as disbursements and participation.&nbsp;
What GAO Recommends
In its March 2015 report, GAO recommended that FCC conduct a program evaluation to determine the extent to which the Lifeline program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals. FCC agreed that it should evaluate the extent to which the program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals and said that it will address GAO's recommendation.
For more information, contact Michael Clements at (202) 512-2834 or clementsm@gao.gov.Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:00:00 -0400TestimonyBroadband: Intended Outcomes and Effectiveness of Efforts to Address Adoption Barriers Are Unclear, June 02, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-473
What GAO Found
Home broadband adoption can provide a number of social and economic benefits, according to literature from academic, government, and other research sources and interviews GAO held with researchers, consumer and industry organizations, and government officials. For example, broadband provides access to employment opportunities by providing the means to search and apply for jobs and participate in online job training. It also provides access to a number of government benefits, serves as a conduit for civic participation, and provides a means to connect family members, among other benefits.
Affordability, lack of perceived relevance, and lack of computer skills are the principal barriers to broadband adoption identified by literature and stakeholders GAO interviewed. Efforts to address these barriers include projects to increase broadband adoption that were funded by grants from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program (BTOP) and outreach and other efforts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and NTIA. GAO identified three key approaches used to address adoption barriers:
Discounts on computer equipment and broadband subscriptions.
Outreach efforts to promote broadband availability and benefits.
Training to help people develop skills in using computers and broadband.
NTIA and FCC have limited information about the performance of their broadband adoption efforts and have not established goals articulating the outcomes these efforts should achieve. For example, NTIA compiled and published self-reported information from its BTOP grantees about best practices, but has not assessed the effectiveness of these approaches in addressing adoption barriers. Because BTOP has concluded, NTIA missed an opportunity to evaluate which grantees' approaches were the most effective. NTIA's strategic plan includes a goal to increase broadband use, but the agency's performance plan does not include an outcome-based goal and performance indicator for its ongoing broadband adoption efforts, making it unclear how the agency will show progress toward its strategic goal. NTIA had reported new broadband subscribers as a result of its BTOP efforts, but no longer uses this as a performance metric because BTOP has largely concluded. Although FCC's previous strategic plan included a goal to support broadband adoption, the commission issued a revised plan in 2015 with fewer broader goals, replacing the goal that mentioned broadband adoption with a goal that instead discusses broadband availability. Although lack of availability is a potential barrier, GAO's literature review and stakeholder interviews more frequently mentioned the three barriers cited above and FCC's broadband adoption efforts are aligned with those barriers. Thus, the strategic plan does not clearly reflect FCC's actions and whether broadband adoption is a&nbsp;priority for the commission. FCC officials said that the new plan's broadband goal is meant to encompass adoption efforts, but without including outcome-oriented goals for broadband adoption, it is unclear what, if any, related outcomes may be expected from FCC's broadband adoption efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study
While broadband is available to a majority of Americans, barriers have kept some from subscribing and enjoying its benefits. In 2010, FCC published the National Broadband Plan, which noted that some demographic groups lagged behind others in adopting broadband and called on FCC and NTIA to take action to address these barriers.
GAO was asked to examine progress in addressing broadband adoption barriers. This report examines (1) benefits of home broadband adoption, (2) barriers to adoption and approaches to address them, and (3) the extent to which FCC and NTIA have assessed efforts and set goals to address barriers. GAO reviewed literature on benefits and barriers, documentation on the performance of efforts to address adoption barriers, and interviewed FCC and NTIA officials, 14 of the 42 BTOP grantees, and 21 public and private stakeholders selected based on GAO's prior work and recommendations from other stakeholders.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that NTIA include an outcome-based goal and measure for its broadband adoption work in its performance plan. NTIA stated that such metrics are not appropriate for its efforts because these efforts are advisory. GAO believes measuring outcomes is key to demonstrating results. GAO also recommends that FCC revise its strategic plan to more clearly state if broadband adoption is a priority, and if so, what outcomes FCC intends to achieve. FCC noted that to the extent its plan is unclear, it will take steps to address the recommendation.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTelecommunications: Agencies Need Better Controls to Achieve Significant Savings on Mobile Devices and Services, May 21, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-431
What GAO Found
Most of the 15 agencies GAO reviewed did not have an inventory of mobile devices and associated services that can be used to assess device usage. The majority of agencies delegated responsibility of their inventories to their components. Only 5 of the 15 agencies had complete service and device inventories at either the enterprise-level or at the components GAO reviewed. The remaining agencies either did not have inventories or those inventories did not account for all devices and services.
Similarly, only 1 of the 15 agencies GAO reviewed had documented procedures for monitoring spending by reviewing devices and associated service plans for overuse, underuse, or zero use, which are key indicators of potential inefficient use. Eleven agencies had procedures that either addressed some of the potential aspects of inefficient use or were incompletely documented. Three agencies did not have any documented procedures for monitoring mobile device usage.
Number of Agencies That Followed Guidance on Managing Mobile Devices and Services
&nbsp;
Fully satisfied
Met some but not all
Did not satisfy
Inventory (devices and services)
5
7
3
Procedures
1
11
3
Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO-15-431
A key reason agencies did not have enterprise-wide inventories and adequate procedures for monitoring and controlling spending is that they took a decentralized approach to managing mobile device spending. Without an inventory that includes each device and associated service limits and rates, as well as documented procedures to assess device usage relative to service rate plans, agencies have a limited ability to monitor device usage and determine if a device should be canceled or moved to a more cost-effective service plan. Further, without a reliable inventory of mobile service contracts, agencies are less likely to identify opportunities for consolidation, and thus are less likely to achieve cost savings.
In addition, although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) identified a goal for financial savings related to mobile devices and services, it has not measured progress toward that goal, as called for by leading practices in performance management. Instead, an OMB analyst said that OMB provides agencies with information on rates paid by other agencies because it believes such information is more effective at convincing agencies to achieve savings. However, without measuring progress toward its goal, OMB has little assurance that its approach is effective.
Regarding monthly mobile service costs, according to reports to OMB that GAO reviewed, agencies paid a range of rates per line for various service combinations, from $21 for 200 voice minutes, unlimited data, and 200 text messages, to $122 for unlimited voice, data, and text messages. Agencies also paid different rates for the same bundle of services. For example, for the unlimited voice, text, and data bundles, agencies paid between $69 and $122 per month.
Why GAO Did This Study
According to the most recent OMB estimate, the federal government spends about $1.2 billion annually on about 1.5 million mobile devices and associated services. OMB has identified the potential for achieving efficiencies and reducing spending on mobile technology.
GAO was asked to study management of federal mobile devices. This report's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which federal agencies developed and maintained inventories of mobile devices and wireless services, (2) determine the extent to which agencies established procedures for monitoring and controlling spending on these devices and services, and (3) describe agencies' mobile service rates. For the 15 agencies having the highest reported annual telecommunications spending, GAO compared their inventories and procedures with federal guidance, and identified service rates reported to OMB. For each agency that delegated responsibilities to components, GAO assessed two components' inventories and procedures. GAO also interviewed agency and OMB officials.
What GAO Recommends
To better control mobile device spending, GAO recommends that the 15 agencies take actions to improve their inventories and control processes and that OMB measure and report progress in achieving mobile cost savings. OMB and 14 agencies generally agreed with the recommendations or had no comment. One agency, the Department of Defense, partially agreed, but GAO maintains actions are still needed.
For more information, contact Carol R. Cha at (202) 512-4456 or chac@gao.gov.Thu, 21 May 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportBroadband Performance: Additional Actions Could Help FCC Evaluate Its Efforts to Inform Consumers, April 17, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-363
What GAO Found
Consumers can access broadband performance information from several sources, including Internet service providers (ISP), online speed tests, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); however, the information has some limitations. For example:
ISP information: FCC's transparency rule requires ISPs to disclose broadband performance information, but ISPs' disclosures vary, and some stakeholders said that the lack of standardization of disclosures can make it difficult for consumers to compare broadband services. Some ISPs, however, question the need and benefit of standardized disclosures. FCC recently adopted enhancements to the transparency rule, such as specifying what information ISPs must disclose, and FCC is considering potential disclosure formats.
Speed tests: Consumers can use information from these tests to verify their broadband speeds. However, speed tests can be affected by many factors and may not detect congestion affecting a specific website. Thus, it can be difficult for consumers to identify the cause of their broadband performance problems.
FCC reports: Through the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, FCC tests ISPs' networks and compares their actual and advertised speeds in an annual report . However, the report is not targeted toward consumers, and stakeholders stated that consumers may not be aware of the report.
FCC has taken steps to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information, such as its transparency rule and MBA program; however, FCC's ability to evaluate its efforts is limited by a lack of useful performance information and relevant performance goals and measures. For instance, while FCC obtains information about the effectiveness of its efforts from stakeholders' comments and consumers' complaints, FCC has not sought performance information from more objective sources, such as consumer research—as has been done by other government entities. Further, although consumer complaints can provide FCC with valuable insights on topics of interest to the commission, FCC has acknowledged that complaints may not provide a complete picture of consumer's information needs and some industry stakeholders have questioned FCC's reliance on complaints as a basis for making decisions. In addition, although FCC's strategic plan includes strategic objectives related to informing consumers about broadband networks, FCC lacks performance goals and measures to monitor the impact and effectiveness of its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information. GAO has previously reported that critical elements of effective performance management include information that is complete and consistent, with performance measures linked to goals. Without such information and measures, FCC cannot be assured that its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information are effective and meeting consumers' needs.
Why GAO Did This Study
Broadband is increasingly seen as an essential communications service, with applications in education, medicine, public safety, and entertainment. However, consumers can experience broadband performance problems. FCC, which has primary responsibility for regulating broadband, has taken steps to measure broadband performance and to require that ISPs give consumers information about the performance of their services.
GAO was asked to review issues related to broadband performance information. This report examines (1) broadband performance information available to consumers and its limitations, if any, and (2) FCC's actions to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information.
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed FCC proceedings; conducted a literature review; analyzed comments filed with FCC regarding broadband performance information; and interviewed FCC officials and various stakeholders from industry and public interest groups.
What GAO Recommends
FCC should take additional steps to evaluate its efforts to provide consumers with broadband performance information. This should include: (1) conducting or commissioning research on the effectiveness of its efforts and making the results publicly available, and (2) establishing performance goals and measures that allow FCC to monitor and report on these efforts. FCC concurred with GAO's recommendations.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Fri, 15 May 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTelecommunications Relay Service: FCC Should Strengthen Its Management of Program to Assist Persons with Hearing or Speech Disabilities, April 29, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-409
What GAO Found
Since 2002, the overall minutes of use and costs for the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program have grown significantly due to the advent of Internet-based forms of TRS and increased usage by the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities. Program data show that total TRS minutes have grown from about 53 million in “rate year” (July-to-June) 2002–2003 to about 249 million in rate year 2013–2014, an almost five-fold increase. Total TRS costs have grown from about $104 million in the 2002–2003 rate year to about $818 million in the 2013–2014 rate year, an almost eight-fold increase. These increases stem from the popularity of new forms of TRS that use the Internet—such as Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service—and the growth in consumers' use of them, according to FCC, some providers, and one consumer group that GAO interviewed.
The purpose of the TRS program under federal law is to provide persons who are deaf or hard of hearing or have a speech disability with telecommunications services that are “functionally equivalent” to those provided to persons without a hearing or speech disability, but FCC has not established specific performance goals to guide its efforts. FCC has established some performance measures for TRS in the form of minimum performance standards for TRS providers, such as regulations requiring that TRS communications assistants must answer 85 percent of TRS calls (except VRS) within 10 seconds; however, these standards are not linked to higher-level performance goals. By establishing performance measures before establishing performance goals, FCC may be spending time and resources on efforts not well linked to key dimensions of the program. Because of the lack of specific TRS performance goals—and specific performance measures crafted around those goals—it is difficult to determine in an objective, quantifiable way if TRS is making available functionally equivalent telecommunications services, and it is difficult for FCC to manage the program in a proactive, results-oriented manner.
FCC has designed some internal controls for the TRS program, but lacks a comprehensive internal-control system to manage program risks. To address fraud, FCC has designed numerous controls to address compliance risks. For example, FCC eliminated the ability of TRS providers to use subcontractors in 2011 and strengthened TRS's provider-certification rules and user registration rules in 2013. Internal control standards call for the completion of a risk assessment to identify and analyze program risks. FCC's last risk assessment, in 2013, was a one-page document that did not comprehensively identify programmatic risks. A robust risk assessment would help FCC identify risks to providing functionally equivalent services and inform the development of the overall internal-control system. Internal control standards also call for effective external communications to groups that can impact the program, such as TRS's users and providers. FCC's program policies are spread across numerous reports and orders. Six of 10 TRS providers told us they experienced difficulties understanding TRS rules. FCC has sought comment on how best to reorganize its rules to improve clarity, but has not yet adopted any such changes. Doing so could improve FCC's communication of TRS rules and procedures to the deaf community and the companies providing services.
Why GAO Did This Study
TRS allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls, often with the help of a communications assistant who acts as a translator or facilitator between the two parties having the conversation. FCC is the steward of the TRS program and the federal TRS Fund, which reimburses TRS providers.
GAO was asked to examine FCC's management of the TRS program. This report examines, among other things, (1) changes in TRS services and costs since 2002, (2) FCC's TRS performance goals and measures and how they compare with key characteristics of successful performance goals and measures, and (3) the extent to which the design of the program's internal control system identifies and considers program risks. GAO analyzed 2002 through 2014 service and cost data, compared TRS performance goals and measures to key characteristics of successful performance goals and measures, compared the design of the TRS's internal control system with GAO's standards for internal control, and interviewed officials from FCC, the 10 companies providing interstate TRS, and associations representing the deaf and hard of hearing.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that FCC develop specific TRS performance goals and measures, conduct a robust program risk assessment, and improve the communication of TRS's rules and procedures. In commenting on a draft of this report, FCC agreed with the recommendations and discussed actions it plans to take to implement them.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Fri, 08 May 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportPublic-Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Should Strengthen Internal Controls and Evaluate Lessons Learned, April 28, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-407
What GAO Found
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) has made progress carrying out its responsibilities established in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the 2012 act) but lacks certain elements of effective internal controls. FirstNet is charged with the complex and challenging task of establishing a new, nationwide, wireless broadband network for public safety entities, in consultation with federal, state, local, and tribal stakeholders. The network will initially support interoperable data communications, and later integrate mission-critical voice capabilities as public safety standards for voice communications are developed. FirstNet has made progress establishing an organizational structure, planning for the network, and consulting with stakeholders. FirstNet has also begun establishing policies and practices consistent with federal internal control standards. Officials told GAO that they plan to continue to do so. However, FirstNet has not fully assessed its risks or established standards of conduct—which is an important form of ethical guidance for its personnel . Given that FirstNet faces numerous risks to achieve its complex objectives, fully assessing risks could help FirstNet achieve its objectives and maximize use of its resources. Developing standards of conduct could also help FirstNet address any performance issues in a timely manner.
A nationwide public-safety broadband network has been estimated by various entities to cost billions of dollars, and FirstNet faces difficult decisions determining how to fund the network's construction and ongoing operations. These estimates indicate the cost to construct and operate such a network could be from $12 to $47 billion over the first 10 years. The actual cost of FirstNet's network will be influenced by FirstNet's (1) business model, especially the extent of commercial partnerships; (2) use of existing infrastructure; (3) efforts to ensure network reliability; and (4) network coverage. For example, the cost of the network may be higher if FirstNet does not utilize partnerships and some existing infrastructure. To become self-funding, FirstNet is authorized to generate revenue through user fees and commercial partnerships. However, FirstNet faces difficult decisions in determining how to best utilize these revenue sources. For instance, widespread network coverage can attract more users and revenue, but is expensive to construct and maintain, especially in rural areas.
FirstNet has taken steps to collect and evaluate information and lessons from the five “early builder projects” that are developing local and regional public-safety networks, but could do more to ensure that the lessons are properly evaluated. For example, FirstNet has asked the projects to report on the experiences of their networks' users and has assigned contractors to collect and log lessons. However, FirstNet does not have a plan that clearly articulates how it will evaluate those experiences and lessons. Although FirstNet told GAO that it remains in close contact with early builder projects, GAO has previously found that a well-developed evaluation plan for projects like these can help ensure that agencies obtain the information necessary to make effective program and policy decisions. Given that the early builder projects are doing on a local and regional level what FirstNet must eventually do nationally, an evaluation plan can play a key role in FirstNet's strategic planning and program management, providing feedback on both program design and execution and ensuring FirstNet has not missed opportunities to incorporate lessons the projects have identified.
Why GAO Did This Study
For communications during emergencies, public safety officials rely on thousands of separate systems, which often lack interoperability, or the ability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions. The 2012 act created FirstNet within the Department of Commerce to establish, for public safety use, a nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network, which will initially support data transmissions. The 2012 act established numerous responsibilities for FirstNet, provided $7 billion for network construction, and required FirstNet to be self-funding beyond this initial allocation. As part of the effort, FirstNet is working with five “early builder projects” that are building local and regional public-safety broadband networks.
GAO was asked to examine FirstNet's progress in establishing the network. GAO assessed (1) FirstNet's progress carrying out its responsibilities and establishing internal controls, (2) how much the network is estimated to cost and how FirstNet plans to become self-funding, and (3) what lessons can be learned from the early builder projects. GAO reviewed FirstNet documentation and public-safety network cost estimates, surveyed all state-designated FirstNet contacts, and interviewed FirstNet officials and public safety stakeholders selected for their telecommunications and public safety experience.
What GAO Recommends
FirstNet should complete its risk assessment, develop standards of conduct, and develop an evaluation plan for early builder projects. FirstNet concurred with the recommendations.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportTelecommunications: FCC Should Evaluate the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Lifeline Program, March 24, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-335
What GAO Found
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made progress implementing reforms to the Lifeline Program (Lifeline), which reduces the cost of telephone service for eligible low-income households. In 2012, FCC adopted a Reform Order with 11 key reforms that aimed to increase accountability and strengthen internal controls, among other things. FCC has implemented seven of the reforms and partially implemented four. In some cases, FCC needs to make a decision, and in other cases, additional time is needed to fully implement the reform. However, FCC has not evaluated Lifeline's effectiveness in achieving its goals—to ensure the availability of voice service for low-income Americans and minimize the burden on consumers and businesses that fund the program. FCC attributes improvements in the level of low-income households' subscribing to telephone service over the past 30 years to Lifeline, but other factors, such as lower prices, may play a role. FCC officials stated that Lifeline's structure makes evaluation difficult, but referred GAO to academic studies that suggest that many low-income households would subscribe to telephone service without Lifeline. GAO has found that program evaluation can help agencies understand whether a program is addressing an intended problem. Without a program evaluation, FCC does not know whether Lifeline is effectively ensuring the availability of telephone service for low-income households while minimizing program costs.
In 2014, over 12 million households participated in Lifeline, up from about 7 million in 2008. At its peak enrollment in 2012, Lifeline served about 18 million households. The introduction of prepaid wireless service contributed to this growth. After the Reform Order, program disbursements declined from $2.2 billion in 2012 to $1.7 billion in 2014, due in part to a reduction in the number of ineligible households receiving benefits. Based on interviews with stakeholders and providers, GAO identified challenges households may face in accessing and retaining benefits, including lack of awareness of the program and difficulty complying with new requirements, such as providing documentation of eligibility. Companies providing Lifeline service have taken steps, such as greater outreach and in-person enrollment, to mitigate these challenges.
The usefulness of information FCC gathered through its broadband pilot program may be limited due to the lack of an evaluation plan and other challenges. The pilot program included 14 projects to test an array of options and provide data on how Lifeline could be structured to promote broadband. According to FCC officials, the 14 projects enrolled about one-tenth of the 74,000 customers anticipated before ending subsidized service in October 2014. Although GAO previously recommended in 2010 that FCC develop a needs assessment and implementation and evaluation plans for the pilot, FCC did not do so and now faces difficulties in evaluating the program without established benchmarks. Although enrollment was lower than anticipated, FCC officials believe information on the number of eligible consumers offered service can provide relevant information regarding the options' effects on broadband adoption. However, FCC did not survey these consumers and does not know why eligible households did not enroll. The pilot projects are substantially complete, and FCC officials noted that the pilot program is one of many factors FCC will consider when deciding whether and how to incorporate broadband into Lifeline.
Why GAO Did This Study
Through FCC's Lifeline program, companies provide discounts to eligible low-income households for telephone service. Lifeline supports these companies through the Universal Service Fund (USF). Companies generally pass their USF contribution obligation on to their customers, typically in the form of a line item on their telephone bills. In 2012, FCC adopted reforms to address problems with duplicate and ineligible participants and to explore adding broadband through a pilot program.
GAO was asked to review FCC's reforms. This report examines (1) the status of reform efforts and the extent to which FCC has evaluated program effectiveness, (2) the extent to which households participate and challenges they face in accessing and retaining benefits, and (3) FCC's plans to evaluate the broadband pilot program.
GAO reviewed FCC orders and other relevant documentation; analyzed 2008–2012 Census Bureau data; and interviewed FCC officials, officials at four pilot projects selected based on features such as technology, and officials from 12 Lifeline providers and four states selected based on factors such as disbursements and participation.
What GAO Recommends
FCC should conduct a program evaluation to determine the extent to which the Lifeline program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals. FCC agreed that it should evaluate the extent to which the program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals and said that FCC staff will address GAO's recommendation.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportBroadcast Exclusivity Rules: Effects of Elimination Would Depend on Other Federal Actions and Industry Response, April 14, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-441
What GAO Found
Broadcast industry stakeholders that GAO interviewed (including national broadcast networks, such as ABC, and local television stations) report that the exclusivity rules are needed to protect local television stations' contractual rights to be the exclusive providers of network content, such as primetime dramas, and syndicated content, such as game shows, in their markets. These stakeholders report that by protecting exclusivity, the rules support station revenues, including fees from cable operators paid in return for retransmitting (or providing) the stations to their subscribers (known as retransmission consent fees). Conversely, cable industry stakeholders report that the rules limit options for providing high-demand content, such as professional sports, to their subscribers by requiring them to do so by retransmitting the local stations in the markets they serve. As a result, these stakeholders report that the rules may lead to higher retransmission consent fees, which may increase the fees households pay for cable service.
Based on GAO's analysis of industry stakeholder views, expressed in comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and interviews, eliminating the exclusivity rules may have varying effects.
If the rules were eliminated and cable operators can provide television stations from other markets to their subscribers (or “import” a “distant station”), local stations may no longer be the exclusive providers of network and syndicated content in their markets. This situation could reduce stations' bargaining position when negotiating with cable operators for retransmission consent. As a result, stations may agree to lower retransmission consent fees. This potential reduction in revenues could reduce stations' investments in content, including local news and community-oriented content; the fees households pay for cable television service may also be affected. Because multiple factors may influence investment in content and fees, GAO cannot quantify these effects.
If the rules were eliminated, other federal and industry actions could limit cable operators' ability to import distant stations. For example, if copyright law was amended in certain ways, cable operators could face challenges importing distant stations. A cable operator could be required to secure approval from all copyright holders (such as the National Football League) whose content appears on a distant station the cable operator wants to import; with possibly hundreds of copyright holders in a day's programming, the transaction costs would make it unlikely that a cable operator would import a distant station. Also, broadcast networks may be able to provide oversight of retransmission consent agreements if FCC rules were to allow it. Cable operators may only import distant stations if retransmission consent agreements with those stations permit it, and stations' agreements with broadcast networks generally prohibit stations from granting such retransmission. If FCC rules allowed it, broadcast networks could provide oversight to help ensure such agreements do not grant retransmission outside the stations' local markets. Under these two scenarios, local stations may remain the exclusive providers of content in their markets, their bargaining position may remain unchanged, and there may be limited effects on content and fees for cable service.
Why GAO Did This Study
Local television stations negotiate with content providers—including national broadcast networks, such as ABC—for the right to be the exclusive provider of content in their markets. FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules (“exclusivity rules”) help protect these contractual rights. In 2014, FCC issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) to consider eliminating or modifying the rules in part to determine if the rules are still needed given changes in recent years to the video marketplace.
GAO was asked to review the exclusivity rules and the potential effects of eliminating them. This report examines (1) industry stakeholder views on the need for and effects of the exclusivity rules and (2) the potential effects that removing the exclusivity rules may have on the production and distribution of content, including local news and community-oriented content.
GAO reviewed all 31 comments filed by industry stakeholders with FCC in response to its FNPRM. GAO also interviewed 27 of those industry stakeholders and FCC officials. GAO also analyzed—in light of general economic principles—stakeholder views on the potential effects of eliminating the rules.
FCC reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments that GAO incorporated as appropriate.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:00:00 -0400Letter ReportPublic Safety Communications: Preliminary Information on FirstNet's Efforts to Establish a Nationwide Broadband Network, March 11, 2015http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-380T
What GAO Found
GAO's ongoing work has found that the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) has made progress carrying out the responsibilities established in the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (the 2012 act) but lacks certain elements of effective internal controls. FirstNet has made progress establishing an organizational structure, planning the nationwide public-safety broadband network, and consulting with stakeholders. Nevertheless, stakeholders GAO contacted cited upcoming issues, such as deciding the level of network coverage, which will be difficult for FirstNet to address as it continues to carry out its responsibilities. With respect to internal controls, FirstNet has begun establishing policies and practices consistent with federal standards, but it has not fully assessed its risks or established Standards of Conduct . Given that FirstNet faces a multitude of risks to achieve its complex objectives, fully assessing risks would help FirstNet respond to risks in a proactive way. Developing standards of conduct would help FirstNet address conduct and performance issues in a timely manner.
A nationwide public-safety broadband network is estimated to cost billions of dollars, and FirstNet faces difficult decisions determining how to fund the network's construction and ongoing operations. Various entities have estimated the cost to construct and operate such a network from $12 to $47 billion over the first 10 years. The actual cost of FirstNet's network will be influenced by FirstNet's (1) business model, especially the extent of commercial partnerships; (2) use of existing infrastructure; (3) efforts to ensure network reliability; and (4) network coverage. For example, the cost of the network will likely increase if FirstNet does not utilize commercial partnerships and at least some existing infrastructure. The 2012 act provides FirstNet $7 billion to establish the network. To become self-funding, FirstNet is authorized to generate revenue through user fees and commercial partnerships, the latter of which can involve secondary use of the network for non-public safety services. However, GAO's ongoing work suggests that FirstNet faces difficult decisions in determining how to best utilize these revenue sources. For instance, widespread network coverage can attract more users, and thus user fee revenue, but is expensive to construct and maintain, especially in rural areas.
FirstNet has taken steps to collect and evaluate information and lessons from the five “early builder projects” that are developing local and regional public-safety networks, but could do more to ensure that it properly evaluates and incorporates these lessons. For example, FirstNet has asked the projects to report on the experiences of their networks' users and has assigned contractors to collect and log lessons. However, preliminary results indicate that FirstNet does not have a plan that clearly articulates how it will evaluate those experiences and lessons. GAO has previously found that a well-developed evaluation plan for projects like these can help ensure that agencies obtain the information necessary to make effective program and policy decisions. Given that the early builder projects are doing on a local and regional level what FirstNet must eventually do nationally, an evaluation plan can play a key role in FirstNet's strategic planning and program management, providing feedback on both program design and execution and ensuring FirstNet has not missed opportunities to incorporate lessons the projects have identified.
Why GAO Did This Study
Public safety officials rely on thousands of separate radio systems to communicate during emergencies, which often lack interoperability, or the ability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions. The 2012 act created FirstNet to establish a nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for public safety use. In doing so, the act established numerous responsibilities for FirstNet, provided $7 billion from spectrum auctions proceeds for the network's construction, and required FirstNet to be self-funding beyond this initial allocation. As part of the effort, FirstNet is working with five “early builder projects” that have permission to build local and regional interoperable public-safety broadband networks.
This statement is based on preliminary information from GAO's ongoing review of FirstNet. This statement addresses (1) FirstNet's progress carrying out its responsibilities and establishing internal controls, (2) how much the network is estimated to cost and how FirstNet plans to become self-funding, and (3) what lessons can be learned from the early builder projects. GAO reviewed relevant FirstNet documentation and public-safety network cost estimates recommended by agency officials and experts; surveyed the state-designated FirstNet contact in 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia; and interviewed FirstNet officials and public safety and wireless industry stakeholders selected for their telecommunications and public safety experience, among other things.
For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:00:00 -0400TestimonyMobile Devices: Federal Agencies' Steps to Improve Mobile Access to Government Information and Services, December 22, 2014http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-69
What GAO Found
According to Pew Research Center, in 2013, some demographic groups relied more on cellphones to access the Internet than others. Those who are young, earn more income, have a graduate degree, or are African American had the highest rate of mobile access. In contrast, according to Pew, those who used cellphones to access the Internet in 2013 at lower rates tended to be seniors, the less educated, or rural populations. Only 22 percent of seniors ages 65 and older accessed the Internet using cellphones, compared to 85 percent of young people. GAO also found that access to the Internet using cellphones has increased, primarily due to lower cost, convenience, and technical advances.
Various Populations' Use of Cellphones to Access the Internet, 2013
Although desktop and laptop computers are still the primary means of access, consumers are increasingly using mobile devices to access websites with government information and services. For example, the number of individual visitors using smartphones and tablets to access the Department of the Interior's information and services increased significantly from 57,428 visitors in 2011 to 1,206,959 in 2013. Even so, mobile Internet users reportedly face a range of challenges accessing government services online. For example, viewing any website that has not been “optimized” for mobile access—in other words, redesigned for smaller screens—can be challenging.
Federal agencies—which have more than 11,000 websites—have taken a range of actions to enhance access to information and services via mobile devices. The Office of Management and Budget, in response to the milestones laid out in its Digital Government Strategy , created the Digital Services Advisory Group, which—together with the General Services Administration‘s Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technology—has provided federal agencies with guidance, resources, and tools to enhance access to government services via mobile devices. In addition, five of the six agencies GAO interviewed have taken steps to improve access to their websites via mobile devices. For example, in 2012, the Department of Transportation (DOT) redesigned its main website, www.dot.gov, to provide a platform for mobile access. Three of the other agencies GAO interviewed have also redesigned websites to better accommodate mobile devices and the other two agencies have plans to do so.
Why GAO Did This Study
Today, millions of Americans use mobile devices like smartphones and tablet computers on a daily basis to communicate and obtain information. Further, due to recent technical advances in mobile technology, consumers can use these devices to carry out a broad range of activities that previously required a desktop or laptop computer—including shopping, banking, and accessing government services. Given these trends, providing government information and services “anytime, anywhere, and on any device,” has become increasingly important, particularly as some mobile users may not have any other means of online access.
GAO reviewed information on mobile users and how they access government information and services. This report describes (1) the demographics of mobile users and the factors that might be associated with the increased use of mobile devices, (2) the devices individuals are using to access government services and the challenges people face, and (3) the actions the federal government has taken to enhance access to government services via mobile devices. GAO reviewed pertinent federal legislation and guidance and conducted a review of literature; interviewed, analyzed and reviewed information from six randomly selected federal agencies; and interviewed officials from other federal agencies and consumer advocacy groups.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is not making recommendations in this report.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:00:00 -0500Letter Report